Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   Rand Paul predicts what President Trump will do next concerning healthcare. Obvious tag takes a sick day   ( washingtonexaminer.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, state lines, Employee Retirement Income Security Act, President Trump, Trump administration officials, Sen. Rand Paul, federal healthcare policy, health insurance, Income Security Act  
•       •       •

3090 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Sep 2017 at 3:20 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



94 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-27 01:46:40 PM  
Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.
 
2017-09-27 01:49:38 PM  

EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.


But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of
 
2017-09-27 01:58:42 PM  
He might have to actually understand health care if he were to do that.

But I guess it's not like that's ever stopped him from acting before.
 
2017-09-27 02:00:04 PM  

rcain: EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.

But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of


The costs of healthcare are local, so by definition competition across state lines is irrelevant. Unless patients are willing to go to other states for treatment, but that's not necessarily saving money either due to travel costs.
 
2017-09-27 02:11:12 PM  

rcain: But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of


I know you're joking; everyone else see my profile on this subject.
 
2017-09-27 02:13:16 PM  

make me some tea: competition across state lines is irrelevant


Au contraire.  Competition across state lines means all the health insurers move their operations to the state with the least consumer protections.  Much like your credit card probably comes from Delaware, Utah, or South Dakota, all your health care coverage would come from Texas or Alabama.
 
2017-09-27 02:25:57 PM  
Throw a twantrum?
 
2017-09-27 02:31:15 PM  

make me some tea: rcain: EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.

But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of

The costs of healthcare are local, so by definition competition across state lines is irrelevant. Unless patients are willing to go to other states for treatment, but that's not necessarily saving money either due to travel costs.


"Local" can mean a lot of things. To large companies like Insurance Carriers, they create regional markets which more often than not incorporate areas across state lines. Also, it might allow States to band together in order to create a unified market and expand the subscriber pool in order to negotiate better market rates

So on the whole, if Trump did enact such an executive Order, it's one of the few such orders he would make that would actually stand to do some actual good for a change
 
2017-09-27 02:34:26 PM  
I'm not reading an article from a "news" site that can't afford a goddamn proofreader.
 
2017-09-27 02:37:05 PM  

rcain: To large companies like Insurance Carriers, they create regional markets which more often than not incorporate areas across state lines


All health insurers, all doctors, and all pharmacists are licensed and regulated at the state level.

it might allow States to band together

Not if all the health insurance companies just move to Alabama or Texas.  Intrastate means all states, not just some states.
 
2017-09-27 02:37:24 PM  
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., predicted Wednesday that President Trump would soon move on his own to make health insurance more affordable, ...

Oh STFU, Rand. If that was Trump's goal, then he would stop farking with the CSR reimbursements that cause premiums to rise in double digit numbers.

Charles Gaba is doing excellent work on this stuff if you're interested in a follow.

Charles Gaba @charles_gaba 17h 17 hours ago
Let me repeat this: Silver plans in FL will be jacked up an ADDITIONAL 26.7% PURELY DUE TO TRUMP CSR SABOTAGE & GOP REFUSING TO RESOLVE IT.
 
2017-09-27 02:39:06 PM  
Er, that is.
 
2017-09-27 02:59:00 PM  
GOP health proposal was tried in Georgia for years, but there were no takers

State insurance regulators told the Journal that in states requiring locally licensed insurers to offer extensive coverage, healthy people might abandon those companies to buy bare bones policies from out of state. That, in turn, would leave local plans insuring mostly people with health problems, who need broader, more expensive coverage. As the locally registered insurance companies absorb the financial hit, the state might feel pressure to relax standards to give them a break.

But the proposals pushed by Price and House Speaker Paul Ryan would still require a minimum set of essential benefits at the federal level in order to qualify for tax credits, said Custer of Georgia State. So the effect of interstate insurance could be minimal, he said.

"It's unlikely to have a large effect on competition in any market,'' he said.


So if you require everyone to have the same benefits, then why shop across state lines? Insurers would have to negotiate with 50 states worth of providers. And if you don't require the same benefits everywhere, then everyone will flock to the lowest priced (and lowest level of coverage) leaving those that need coverage paying ridiculous amounts.

In other words, it's stupid. I know, redundant when we're talking about GOP and health insurance.
 
2017-09-27 03:14:35 PM  

EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.


Besides, most States have strict laws about healthcare, Trump can't just wave a magic wand and force them to accept other State's laws. Congress would need to pass a law and even then just about every State is going to sue.
 
2017-09-27 03:21:53 PM  
It's not Abuse of Power when a Republican does it!
 
2017-09-27 03:25:24 PM  

EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.


Already legal in several states. img.fark.net
 
2017-09-27 03:26:18 PM  
Does this mean I can buy into the Congressional Plan?
 
2017-09-27 03:27:34 PM  
Sounds good, can we all join the same group? Imagine the savings if the group has 300 million members! win win!
 
2017-09-27 03:28:12 PM  

rcain: EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.

But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of


No. There's no federal law against selling insurance across state lines. It's the insurance companies (who must research a market and set prices in a state) who choose not to sell across state lines. Unless Trump is going to MAKE them do it, it won't happen more than it does now. An insurance company can choose not to cover a state if it chooses so.

If the market magically grows to 50 states, each company now does market research for the whole country and sets rates accordingly.
 
2017-09-27 03:28:58 PM  

wheatpennyandaglock: Sounds good, can we all join the same group? Imagine the savings if the group has 300 million members! win win!


Yeah, but then there'd be no competition, right?
 
2017-09-27 03:29:42 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: rcain: But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of

I know you're joking; everyone else see my profile on this subject.


Saw your profile.  Doesn't the ACA mandate certain minimum coverage requirements, thus negating your concern about a race to the bottom?

In the case of the credit card example, I don't believe there was a federal law in place at the time of the change you reference (which was the result of a SCOTUS case) that limited usuary rates in interstate commerce.
 
2017-09-27 03:31:17 PM  
FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.
 
2017-09-27 03:31:33 PM  

UsikFark: wheatpennyandaglock: Sounds good, can we all join the same group? Imagine the savings if the group has 300 million members! win win!

Yeah, but then there'd be no competition, right?


You could use the law to explicitly mandate policy coverage. Then you could get the same plan from any provider. They could compete on cost.
 
2017-09-27 03:33:04 PM  
Correct. they could then charge the lowest price possible, because they would have all of the premiums, take your premium and multiply by 100 million, avg family size, per month, it would cover everybody!
 
2017-09-27 03:34:34 PM  

Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.


Hey, he's two for four on the jumble this week, buddy.
 
2017-09-27 03:36:16 PM  

Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.


The executive interprets laws all day long.

True, however, that this one can't figure out where his belly button lint comes from.
 
2017-09-27 03:36:53 PM  

Teufel Ritter: Marcus Aurelius: rcain: But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of

I know you're joking; everyone else see my profile on this subject.

Saw your profile.  Doesn't the ACA mandate certain minimum coverage requirements, thus negating your concern about a race to the bottom?

In the case of the credit card example, I don't believe there was a federal law in place at the time of the change you reference (which was the result of a SCOTUS case) that limited usuary rates in interstate commerce.


The ACA does have minimum requirements and they're defined in the law.  The GOP proposals claim they do the same, but instead of defining requirements in the text, they (generally) leave it up to a commissioner.  Currently, someone like Tom Price, a Trump appointee, would, in theory, get to decide what is and isn't OK for states to ignore or include.
 
2017-09-27 03:37:35 PM  
Paul's idea is to let individuals form associations and do the same thing, and he said Trump administration officials have been "enthusiastic" about the idea.

"It already exists," Paul said. "What I'm trying to do is let individuals get into that marketplace, and this would be an enormous benefit."


Individuals, so long as they are part of a group. They would form this group, lets call it a pool, in order to spread risk. We could call it something like a "risk pool", for example. Then all they have to do is get together and ask an out of state insurer for the worst plan they can provide. The insurer will require some medical records, of course, they can't take on risk blindly. So these very independent minded individuals that are now in a group would do well to exclude any gross sick people, they'll just drive up the cost. After that, just ask an out of state insurer for the worst plan they can provide.

This just sounds like that time Paul Ryan tripped over his own nonsense and found himself decrying the very concept of insurance.
 
2017-09-27 03:38:32 PM  
Why would anybody doubt that Paul and Trump want to achieve anything other than lowering the health insurance premiums for working class families? What possible motivation could they have apart from that? What other interest might the citizens united think they could possibly influence them?
 
2017-09-27 03:38:44 PM  
bah cut & paste fail

NOBODY LOOK AT ME, I'M HIDEOUS
 
2017-09-27 03:38:49 PM  
"If these individuals can join large groups across state lines, I think they'll get protection, less expensive insurance, and it'll be able to solve a lot of the problems we have in the individual market," he said. "I think President Trump's going to do this on his own."

You mean having a larger insurance pool will reduce costs? With that logic, wouldn't it make sense to have one huge insurance pool then? Sort of like a single payer system?

Also, buying across state lines will not reduce your health insurance costs. Insurers base your premiums on where you live, not where their headquarters are located. If you live in a more expensive part of the country then you will pay more for health insurance. No insurer is going to give you rural Montana rates if you live in Manhattan.
 
2017-09-27 03:39:15 PM  
Ayn Rand > Rand Paul > Paul Ryan

Study it out, sheeple!
 
2017-09-27 03:39:22 PM  

cgraves67: UsikFark: wheatpennyandaglock: Sounds good, can we all join the same group? Imagine the savings if the group has 300 million members! win win!

Yeah, but then there'd be no competition, right?

You could use the law to explicitly mandate policy coverage. Then you could get the same plan from any provider. They could compete on cost.


The way they compete on price is by having a low-cost group (healthy people) or less coverage. The system you describe would have the more expensive consumers moving to the low-cost plans or higher-coverage plans and raising their costs.

A company can't offer the same coverage and premium for a lower price unless they have a healthier group of people, not unless they're willing to suck up the loss.
 
2017-09-27 03:39:32 PM  

Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.


Many statutes delegate to the Executive branch the ability to create regulations relating to statutes.  These regulations often involve interpreting and expanding laws, and in the case of ambiguous statutes, the regulatory interpretations are afforded a very high degree of deference by the courts (look up Chevron Mayo deference).

Of course, it doesn't sound like new regulations are what Rand is necessarily talking about here, but, rightly or wrongly, the modern Executive branch does interpret the laws in a practical sense.
 
2017-09-27 03:39:55 PM  

Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.


To be fair, carrying out laws (the executive function) requires interpreting them; especially complex or hastily-written laws.  Lawmakers aren't game designers.  The judicial branch, which has the explicit task of interpreting laws, only gets involved after someone complains.

Interpreting laws is really what executive orders does; that's why some people seem so opposed to it when it's disadvantageous to them.  It feels like cheating, but it's usually not cheating enough to get all the way to the supreme court.
 
2017-09-27 03:40:41 PM  
The issue I have is it is your life. Health insurance should not be like buying a car.
 
2017-09-27 03:41:05 PM  
I thought executive orders were evil.
 
2017-09-27 03:41:46 PM  

make me some tea: rcain: EvilEgg: Buying across state lines makes it worse for everyone. It removes local control, which I thought the GOP wanted more of.

But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of

The costs of healthcare are local, so by definition competition across state lines is irrelevant. Unless patients are willing to go to other states for treatment, but that's not necessarily saving money either due to travel costs.


This has nothing to do with "competition across state lines."  It has everything to do with "allow people to buy insurance from a state where insurance is poorly regulated and you can't do anything about it if your insurer farks you over."

///I'm not your lawyer
//but I am an insurance lawyer
/you can tell by the fancy legal jargon
 
2017-09-27 03:42:02 PM  

weddingsinger: Teufel Ritter: Marcus Aurelius: rcain: But it makes for greater competition, which the GOP *claim* to be all in favor of

I know you're joking; everyone else see my profile on this subject.

Saw your profile.  Doesn't the ACA mandate certain minimum coverage requirements, thus negating your concern about a race to the bottom?

In the case of the credit card example, I don't believe there was a federal law in place at the time of the change you reference (which was the result of a SCOTUS case) that limited usuary rates in interstate commerce.

The ACA does have minimum requirements and they're defined in the law.  The GOP proposals claim they do the same, but instead of defining requirements in the text, they (generally) leave it up to a commissioner.  Currently, someone like Tom Price, a Trump appointee, would, in theory, get to decide what is and isn't OK for states to ignore or include.


When you say "currently," doyou mean under the ACA, or under the dead on arrival GOP proposals?
 
2017-09-27 03:42:28 PM  
It's a FANTASTIC idea really.

Missouri did the same thing many years ago with usury laws.  As I understand what we did, we passed a statute that capped the loan rate at something very moderate, like 10%.  With the proviso that the cap would be that OR the maximum rate allowed by law in a neighboring state (competition for lenders, right!?).

Thus because Oklahoma dropped usury laws completely, you are now free to borrow money at 7,000% in our state, if you wish to do so.

And that's freedom for ya.

It's been very good for my business.

I am of course a bankruptcy lawyer.  But still... small businessman FTW!
 
2017-09-27 03:42:30 PM  
So HHS is sabotaging the ACA enrollment period, and Trump is claiming they have the votes for Graham Cassidy...
 
2017-09-27 03:43:42 PM  

the_innkeeper: Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.

The executive interprets laws all day long.

True, however, that this one can't figure out where his belly button lint comes from.


Executive branch is not supposed to interpret laws, but to enforce them.  Judicial branch interprets.

Of course, there is always bleed-over and branches clearly doing what they are not meant to do, but by design, Executive isn't supposed to interpret.
 
2017-09-27 03:43:48 PM  

Pincy: You mean having a larger insurance pool will reduce costs? With that logic, wouldn't it make sense to have one huge insurance pool then? Sort of like a single payer system?


Of course it would have to be hamstrung in some way so people wouldn't like it.
 
2017-09-27 03:45:42 PM  
Didn't read yet but I'm gonna guess: lie, make excuses, then lie about the original lies in a totally counterproductive fashion on Twitter before faceplanting into another round of bullshiat and then declaring it all a bigly win for himself and his brand.
 
2017-09-27 03:46:48 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: rcain: To large companies like Insurance Carriers, they create regional markets which more often than not incorporate areas across state lines

All health insurers, all doctors, and all pharmacists are licensed and regulated at the state level.

it might allow States to band together

Not if all the health insurance companies just move to Alabama or Texas.  Intrastate means all states, not just some states.


That would be awesome if the Health Insurance Industry did that. Well -- it would suck for Midwesterners, but for places like California and New York where we want to get off this insane Health Insurance Merry-Go-Round and get a Single Payer Program, it would be glorious
 
2017-09-27 03:47:12 PM  
Can he just declare victory and move on to farking up something else?
 
2017-09-27 03:48:54 PM  
He can do this, but I expect zero effect (which, in this presidency, is probably ideal). I don't see insurers bothering.

It's a ton of work to build up the network of providers and negotiate the contracts to be able to compete. If they were that interested in getting into another state, they would have just done it already.
 
2017-09-27 03:49:09 PM  

Jack Sabbath: the_innkeeper: Jack Sabbath: FTFA:

Paul said he believes Trump doesn't need to issue an executive order to get this done, and simply has to reinterpret the ERISA law. He said the new interpretation would only have to be more expansive when it comes to who is allowed to form an association under ERISA.

The president does not interpret laws.

I doubt this one can interpret Snapple lid puzzles.

The executive interprets laws all day long.

True, however, that this one can't figure out where his belly button lint comes from.

Executive branch is not supposed to interpret laws, but to enforce them.  Judicial branch interprets.

Of course, there is always bleed-over and branches clearly doing what they are not meant to do, but by design, Executive isn't supposed to interpret.


Judicial only interprets when there is conflict in how the written law is interpreted by the executive and actually implemented/enforced/enacted vs. how anyone else with "standing" interprets the written law.
 
2017-09-27 03:49:23 PM  
He's insane and a moron:

img.fark.net
 
2017-09-27 03:51:00 PM  
Holy Fark, what a shiatty website.
62 blocked trackers, widgets and ads by UBlock Origin, and an autoplay video that skips 2 autoplay blockers on top of UBlock. Hope your paycheck is a nice fat one, subby...
 
Displayed 50 of 94 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report